Obama, Indonesia, and Egypt...

I like Barack Obama. If I was an American I would have voted for the man. But, Mr. President, you are letting your 3 plus years in Indonesia go to your head and cloud your judgment. Indonesia is not a shining example that Egypt must follow as an example of how to transit from a dictatorship to democracy.

Perhaps you and your team need to revisit some of your perceptions of Indonesia. The reform process in Indonesia has been slow and very drawn out. There are still huge swathes of the population living on or below the poverty line. Religious fundamentalism and extremism continues to rear its ugly head. And, Mr. President, this is in spite of your claims back in November that Indonesia was a shining example of religious tolerance and pluralism in the Islamic world. Seriously Mr. President how do you think Indonesia's religious minorities such as the Ahmadis and the Christians are feeling about that in light of the recent violence that has been perpetrated against them?

Corruption is still rife in Indonesia. So rife, in fact, that it is almost an every other day occurrence. The scourge is pervasive and persistent. So much so that the president of Indonesia opts to stand idly by and claim professional distance while the primary platform of his mandate is eroded from around him by those who put him into power in the first place.

Nah, if the citizens of Egypt have the sense, and I am sure that they do, then they will not be looking towards the world's largest Muslim nation for any serious substantive pointers regarding a transition to democracy. Hopefully the Egyptian people will not suffer the same fate as Indonesia's long-suffering citizens.

On a final note, Indonesia has not successfully managed the aspirations of the people. In fact, the persistent pandering to special interests and Muslim fundamentalists has meant that extremism is on the rise. The military and police, and perhaps the whole law enforcement apparatus, are nervous. So, if success is gauged by the fact that Muslim groups are now openly canvassing the idea that it is time for the democratically elected president to resign and move out to pasture, then, yes, Mr. Obama, Indonesia is the shining example that Egypt needs to follow.

Then again, this might be why SBY is claiming responsibility for getting Hosni Mubarak to resign for the good of the Egyptian people...

SBY Taking Credit For Hosni Mubarak's Resignation?

Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but how desperate is SBY and the Democrat Party? Marzuki Alie of the Democrat Party, and Head of the House of Representatives, has stated unequivocally that SBY sent a personal letter to Mubarak suggesting that he step aside. The letter was delivered by hand by Special Envoy Hassan Wirajuda.

Apparently, the substance of the letter went along the lines of "Hey Hosni, better take on the Indonesian example and step aside and let the hand-picked Veep take over." "And, it is time to start stashing those billions in hard to find places so as to live your life out in peace and comfort. Take our boy Soeharto, we protected him all the way to his grave." "Final point mate, the sooner you do this stepping aside thing, the sooner I can start doing the rounds and claiming credit for myself as the instigator of your smooth resignation and the movement of Egypt to greater democracy". "Peace Out! Your main man in Indonesia, SBY! Salam!"

Funnily enough, SBY also suggested that Egypt establish an independent election authority to administer free and fair elections. I would be guessing though that Mubarak and his cronies, including his family, would not be giving the proverbial "rat's" about what happens after they squirrel away their billions and bugger off to Monaco or wherever.

But, the biggest chuckle was reserved for the statement that these initiatives at brokering Egyptian peace are enshrined in the 1945 Constitution, and as such Indonesia, and SBY, has an obligation to participate. This maybe so, but the reality Mr. President and Mr. Alie is that Indonesia has some serious constitutional problems at home. For example, the increasing persecution of religious minorities and a president that continually fails to fulfill the mandate granted to him twice. Maybe cleaning up one's own backyard may in fact be more beneficial to a greater majority of Indonesians than claiming credit for cleaning up Egypt's backyard.

I would reckon that the Egyptians got this far without SBY, then they are probably more than capable of going the distance on this one by themselves. In any event, what Mr. Alie and others fail to realise is that 1998 Jakarta and 2011 Cairo are two very different sets of circumstances. Perhaps, it should be Mubarak sending a personal letter to SBY about how to manage his own departure from Indonesian politics!

The idea that Indonesia has transited to democracy is a little premature. Let's face it money politics and corruption are still prevalent. Even more concerning is that the Ministry for Home Affairs is leading the way, with the agreement of a democratically elected president, in winding back the opportunities for Indonesians to elect their leaders at a local level in favour of having those leaders appointed by others.

The whole idea that SBY had any significant role in resolving events in Egypt reeks of desperation, it reeks of a president trying to map out a future tilt at some role on the international stage as a statesman of some repute.  To make it on the big stage might require some success on the domestic stage, and those successes are few and far between, and of late have been non-existent.

Mr. President, rather than getting your point men to claim success on your behalf in Egypt why don't you focus on securing minority rights for Indonesians at home? Why don't you focus on ensuring that those facilitating corruption are punished? Why don't you focus on ensuring that the people of Sidoarjo get fair and full compensation for their losses? The list probably can go on and on and on, but you get the point. Because if you don't then maybe the next letter you receive will be a letter of condolence from Hosni Mubarak commiserating on your unfortunate removal from office with more than half of your second term to go!

Happy Sunday to y'all!

"Reform Unplugged"

A shout out to Treespotter who has made a post already using this title. I have been toying with the idea of writing a piece on how the events in Egypt over the [almost] past three weeks is perhaps a lesson that Indonesians could heed, some Indonesians more than others. Conversely, the reform that Egyptians so overwhelmingly crave could do with a shot of reality, particularly regarding the pace of managed or guided reforms. A managed reformasi process is something that all Indonesians are all too familiar with. On that note, anyone looking for an interesting read on the similarities, head over to Jakartass.

The other reason for the 'unplugged' title is that I have been chilling out to a couple of unplugged albums; Bob Dylan and Neil Young. And, the lack of creativity that I have suggested that something 'unplugged' would make a good blog post.

Hosni Mubarak was a tyrant, a dictator, that has supposedly amassed a fortune somewhere in the vicinity of USD 40 to USD 70 billion over the course of almost 30 years of power. He has done this at the expense of his people. It is little wonder that critical mass was reached and protests began. I have always wondered why tyrants and dictators never come to realise that if they shared just a little they would always get a few more years at the helm. To be honest, all these people could have used a few pep sessions with Singapore's elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew on how to properly stage manage democracy, or at least the semblances of it.

But, I digress.

The reality for most Egyptians, as it was for most Indonesians in 1998, is where to next? The King is dead, sort of. He will move, most probably out of Egypt and retire with his ill-gotten billions. Some will be returned as a small gesture. But, for those ordinary Egyptians struggling on, or below, the poverty line the cold, hard reality is that change or reform will be slow. If Egyptians want to get a good idea of what not to do, at least with respect to pace, then they should look to Indonesia. In the more than twelve years since Soeharto stepped aside after violent street protests and handing the reins of power to his deputy, much has changed and much has stayed the same.

The positives are that Indonesians enjoy greater freedoms of sorts, and except if you are an Ahmadi [minority rights, not!], including the freedoms of speech and expression. Indonesians have enjoyed an opening of the political process to a degree and experienced, by most accounts, a free and fair presidential election. Sadly, this has seen a succession of presidents elected who have been unable to deliver on the promise of the 1998 protest movement.

Gus Dur, despite his good and honourable intentions was a populist at heart who did not really have the heart to make the tough decisions. Megawati, well, "nuff" said. And, the incumbent, SBY. So much promise and so little progress. To Egypt, SBY shows how hard it is to remove entrenched special interests and how those interests continue to hold sway over how Indonesia's new-found democracy operates.

Unfortunately, the coming of democracy has  not seen a reduction in corruption levels or any significant improvement in the bureaucracy that channels that corruption. There is nothing like statistics to hide poverty or the careful manipulation of numbers to lower the threshold in order to hide those living on less than USD 2 per day. What Egypt has to look forward to is entrenched interests who pull their collective heads in in the after math of the killing of the king and biding their time.

For all the steps forward that Indonesia took in the post-1998 period with the establishment of a corruption eradication commission and the pursuit of those special interests it was only a matter of time before the special interests fought back. It appears a compliant [and complicit] president was the only trigger needed to convince those special interests that the ball was in their court.

Egypt does not want reform. Egypt needs complete and fundamental changes to the way the business of democracy is done. Ordinary Egyptians do not want to leave this important business to those schooled in the ways of the old master, Mubarak. Let Indonesians tell you how that turns out. The reality that Indonesians now understand is that letting those schooled in the ways of the previous master means that the practices remain entrenched and the mechanisms and skills required are absent for real change to occur. Skip a generation, the protests were led by the youth let the young leaders of the movement assume control over its ultimate destiny.

Maybe, there is a lesson for SBY in the protests that have rocked Egypt to its core. Listen to your people, listen to their aspirations, after all they are the ones that elected you and they are the ones that you work for. A presidency of unrealised promise might be just the right trigger for a renewed push to "reformasi -- part two".

I guess the reason reform works so slowly, or not at all, is that there is no clear separation from the past. Perhaps the French realised this and that is why the opted for a revolution.

Yes, it is a messy post. But, it is really just a rambling rant ;)

Image courtesy of Dave Granlund.

Is The Fight Against RIM More Than Just Porn?

The Jakarta Globe is reporting that the Minister for [Mis]Communication and [Mis]Information, Tifatul Sembiring (or as I prefer to call him, "TitS") has moved his anti-RIM and anti-BlackBerry fight to an argument that is "more than just about porn". And, he is telling the truth.

The Minister's campaign against RIM is about beating RIM into submission. It is all about control. TitS problem with RIM is that he cannot control it. The fact that he cannot control RIM or how people use their BlackBerry Smartphones is a threat. In the TitS world this is a threat against the unity of the Republic, it is a threat to the political and corporate elite that "run" the show in Indonesia in part to the ability to control the president and organise SBY's agenda. The TitS view is that social networking and the internet are threats to the controlled democracy that Indonesia currently enjoys.

A TitS reality is that if he does not control upstart foreign infidels like RIM then there will be significant repercussions for Indonesia that are not natural disasters (currently linked to viewing too much porn) such as a people-centered democracy as opposed to a political and business elite-centered democracy where the rich get ever so much richer and the rest can do whatever they want so long as it is not social networking.

If you want to see how much of a threat the social networking phenomenon is to Indonesia in the eyes of the National Security Council (Dewan Ketahanan Nasional / Wantannas) then follow this link (unfortunately it is in Indonesian). This is a Terms of Reference (TOR) document for meeting held early 2010.

So, the fact that TitS is now playing the nationalism card is not surprising. In fact, it is long overdue. The best way to turn public opinion is to play to one's sense of nationalistic pride and make the foreigners the bad people who are only in Indonesia to rape and pillage in a vein similar to what the Dutch did when they were the colonial masters of the Dutch East Indies universe. It is a standard game of "us" and "them" rhetoric that is designed to deceive Indonesians to give up voluntarily their freedom to access information in a manner that is difficult for the Indonesian authorities to monitor.

The reality is that a legitimate request for information from RIM or to track corruption or terrorist suspects through the RIM servers would more than likely be granted. The need for a RIM server in Indonesia is nothing more than "big brother" wanting to be able to go in without legitimate reasons to track the activities of every day Indonesians going about their business.

The suggestion yesterday that RIM was stealing the wealth of Indonesian citizens because it did not pay taxes or have business investment such as servers in Indonesia is absurd. RIM provides a service you pay for it, and you get what you pay for. RIM is not stealing from ordinary Indonesians. I am all for finding a way that allows Indonesians to benefit from RIM expertise through employment and the like. Perhaps, a start is the service center. But, the threat to shut RIM down is silly.

It would have been fun to watch RIM tell TitS that they were not going to comply; call his bluff. If TitS had the testicular fortitude to shut RIM down then all hell would break loose down Senayan way as all the BlackBerry using politicians and party appartchiks found themselves carrying round a useless piece of technology.

Yes, Minister, this confrontation is about more than just porn. This shakedown is about the sort of freedoms and democracy that Indonesians want to enjoy in the future. It is about whether Indonesians are allowed to utilise the Internet on their own terms and social network freely or submit to your terms of control.

Is the TitS plan the first step along the path to the dark abyss?

Supreme Court, Gender, and Backlogs -- Indonesia

There was an interesting article in The Jakarta Globe that suggests that a recent appointment to the Indonesian Supreme Court can thank her gender for her appointment.

Sri Murwahyuni who previously sat on the Surabaya District Court has successfully negotiated the fit and proper testing procedures conducted by the House of [not so] Representatives to take her place as the 51st member of the Supreme Court bench. Yes, you read right, 51 members of the bench.

The other appointment was Sofyan Sitompul. Unfortunately, it would seem his gender was not of any assistance as he only just scraped through with 29 out of 57 votes of Commission III on legal affairs.

There are now six women on the 51 member Supreme Court bench. Not truly representative in a population sense, but certainly a move in the right direction.

However, I would be somewhat concerned that the perception is being allowed to develop that she was appointed based on her gender rather than her qualifications and skills, and more specifically what she brings to the Supreme Court as one of its newest members. This perception has developed and will continue to develop if legislators and other commentators do not re-orient their sound bites.

Let's face it,when the Head of the Commission suggests that gender played a role and was an advantage this immediately detracts from the appointee. This is plain and simple sad. This is even more so when the following sentence runs along the lines of "Oh, and she was also qualified too!" But, to add insult to injury, Benny K Harman, the Head of the Commission went one step further to reinforce a stereotype about women being more emotional than men and relying on unknown and unquantifiable other skills.

In this case, Harman said that "A female judge can use her intuition more than a man can and this is what the people want." Huh? What the people want, Benny, is consistency and equitable application of the law. The people want fairness. The people want to know that when they enter the legal system in pursuit of justice that they have every opportunity to find it.

Sad, Benny, sad!

But on a slightly different note. Ruhut Sitompul, no relation to the candidate, stated that there was no corruption in the process because he had never met Sofyan before the vote. I have to say, Ruhut, this hardly engenders any confidence in the process. So, if you had met him before then you might have been open to some good old-fashioned horse trading? But, this is about par for the course for Ruhut in pursuit of getting his head on TV. After all, it was not all that long ago he was seeking support for an idea to amend the constitution to allow SBY to seek a third presidential term for no other reason than all prospective candidates were lousy (in his view).

Sad, Ruhut, sad!

On a completely different note. There are now 51 members on the bench of the Supreme Court. There really should be no delay in seeking justice at the Supreme Court. There should not be any backlog of cases. A country of a similar population size, the USA, has a Supreme Court bench of just nine justices. They seem to manage their workload pretty well in comparison.

Ho hum...

Pong Harjatmo -- Actor and Graffiti Artist...

Most people would expect that their elected members of parliament would live by a creed that demands honesty resoluteness, and fairness. So, having it spray painted on the roof of the Indonesian parliament does not seem all that outrageous in the big scheme of democracy.

Then again, it is Indonesia and most would argue, at least anecdotally, that the people's house in Indonesia, the parliament, is not a bastion of honesty, resoluteness, or even fairness. It is a place, usually uninhabited during plenary sessions, that spends a lot of money, the people's money, and has next to nothing to show for it. For example, legislation. Members can you count the number of pieces of legislation you have passed this term to date? Oh yes, none, zero, zip, bugger all.

So, when Pong Harjatmo decided he was going to climb up onto the roof of the DPR and spray paint his demands on the green roof, it was sure to attract a little attention. It was good to see that the old fella was not disappointed. Pong was a bit of a legend of film back in the 1970s and 1980s, he is now a legend again but for slightly different reasons.

Pong was arrested for his artwork and questioned. He was, however, released without charge. He was given a slap on the wrist and told not to be out and about spray painting his protests on government buildings. Not to be deterred, Pong has said he will be making his protests wherever he feels is appropriate. If I may be so forward, the Police Headquarters could use some new paint!

Julia Perez and the New York Times...

For a political candidate with no political experience and a reputation for controversy Julia Perez has certainly quickly mastered the art of using the media. Here is a young woman who's primary claim to fame involves being in touch with her femininity, sexuality, and sexiness who has managed to captivate a nation and seemingly the world into a race in a small town in rural Java.

It is an interesting aside that she is running for elected office in the town that the current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, hails from, but that's all it is, an aside.

The more intriguing issues were an attempt to introduce "moral" standards that candidates would have to meet in order to be able to nominate and stand for public office. This was designed with Julia Perez (or Jupe) in mind. It has come and gone, and is now well and truly off the radar for the present time. It is probably a good thing for many others other than Julia Perez because there are quite a few politicians that would conceivably have moral issues that would otherwise exclude them from public office (no need to name names, is there?).

There are those that doubt the legitimacy of Perez's candidacy and her ability to do the job as they would rather focus on the presumption that Ms. Perez is being exploited by shrewd political operators in an effort to embarrass the president and to exacerbate the divide between Indonesians of a more moderate and pluralistic view and those who adopt more fundamental and hardline approaches.

However, no one seems to be canvassing the idea that the person doing the exploiting is Ms. Perez herself. Maybe it is Perez that is exploiting the opportunity and the offers to run for office are just the opportunity she has been looking for.

Let's face it; win, lose, or draw in the election, she has won on a bigger scale in that she will now have expanded her base into places she might otherwise never have been able to. How many seriously experienced Indonesian politicians can claim recent stories on CNN and now in the New York Times.

It should be remembered that even though she has little or no political experience of consequence, she does have plenty of social activism related experience as a spokesperson on a number of issues relating to sexual health, among others. This might in fact be more "experience" than some current politicians had when they were elected to office in the present term.

Democracy is a beautiful thing. This time it seems that democracy Jupe style is a lot better looking than what the opposition has to offer.

One final note (and an admission), I am glad that she is running because it is a good excuse to go through my collection of Jupe photos and post them in the relevant blog posts. Enjoy (all these photos are freely available on the Internet, you can search for them and more if you need to).

Ho hum...

Beating Activists in Indonesia...

Some things seem destined to never change. The fact that Indonesia seemingly does not take this kind of violence and brutality seriously only serves to embolden the perpetrators into believing that they can act with immunity and impunity. The Munir case remains unresolved; unresolved to any satisfaction to those who have suffered directly and to the great majority of Indonesians who suffer indirectly because of the president's, the government's, and law enforcement's desire not to pursue the case seriously.

This lack of action can be directly linked, at least in my humble opinion, to the recent brutal bashing and stabbing of Tama Satrya Langkun of Indonesian Corruption watch. Langkun is an investigator with ICW and has been prominent in the uncovering of alleged police corruption, particularly the publicising of some rather large deposits into the personal bank accounts of Indonesian police officers. Langkun was stabbed and beaten in a vicious attack in Duren Tiga in South Jakarta. He was riding a motorcycle with a colleague. The attack occurred at 3.45am. He is reportedly in a stable condition in a local hospital.

This was clearly not a robbery but rather a calculated attack against an activist. Nothing was stolen. In fact, the perpetrators revisited the scene of the crime after the attack to return Langkun's motorcycle helmet, which had been taken.

Indonesia claims to be a democracy where the rule of law prevails. This would be much easier to believe if the perpetrators of assassinations, such as that of Munir, and the political violence evidenced in this most recent attack were pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Indonesia might be a democracy, but it is a democracy where the 'old ways' continue to be tolerated and seemingly encouraged through the lack of action taken by the powers that be.

Maybe it is time for all Indonesians to take a stand and demand something more than lip-service to the ideal of good governance, clean governance, democracy, and human rights from their fellow Indonesians in government and law enforcement.

It could be a long wait.

The photo was sourced from The Jakarta Globe via Facebook.

Julia Perez and Democracy in Indonesia...

It would seem that the Minister of Home Affairs, Gamawan Fauzi, indicated that the government of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was going to amend the eligibility criteria for prospective candidates for political office. Generally, these amendments are thought to include provisions that would stipulate that candidates have certain levels of practical political experience before being nominated.

Indonesia has had, and currently has, quite a number of celebrities make the move from celebrity to politician. Some have done better than others. However, this post is not a critique of each celebrities performance as a politician, but rather to pose the question; "does amending the laws in this way amount to an attack on democracy and the right of individuals to run for office?"

Julia Perez thinks that it is. Most Indonesian media is reporting the story and Ms. Perez has been quite vocal in stating that she believes that the proposed amendments are designed to thwart her bid for public office. The government in contrast say that the rationale is more general in its undertaking; politics is not a popularity contest. Therefore, candidates need to have real and practical political skills if they are going to assume office and be successful.

The reality is that not everyone with political experience will make a good candidate. In any event, it might be worth pondering how one goes about getting political experience if they are never allowed to run for office because they do not have any political experience in order to be nominated. A vicious circle of the chicken and egg kind.

In a democracy you get what you vote for, but this would seemingly be premised on having choices in who you can vote for. However, amending the laws and regulations to stipulate certain "professional experience" levels before one can be nominated and a chance at being elected clearly suggests that the government is seeking to limit the choices that voters have, which appears to be most undemocratic for a President, a government, and a country who prides themselves on the leaps and bounds they have made towards full-scale democracy.

Even if I had the choice, I probably would not vote for Julia Perez. Then again, it depends on what policies she has and how she articulates them. And, most importantly, whether she articulates them in such a way that I believe she can achieve the outcomes that she promises. But, I believe that she has, and must always have, the right to run for public office if she so desires. Let the people decide!

Interesting times!

Is SBY A Thief or A Buffalo?

In a case of Indonesian democracy in action, the President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), has decided that he needs to put together a working group to, in part, examine the conduct of demonstrators. The working group is ostensibly tasked with looking at matters related to law enforcement, security, bureaucratic reform, and democracy. Seemingly this includes whether or not there is a code of ethics and conduct that demonstrators must subscribe to if they want to protest. The president is concerned that some recent protests have breached the 'code' and even the law.

The protests that the president is particularly referring to are those related to the ongoing Bank Century shenanigans, particularly those ones where protesters / demonstrators using loud speakers yell at the top of their lungs that the president is a thief. Or even more recently where the second term president has been likened to a buffalo (he doesn't look like a buffalo to me). In the mind of SBY buffaloes are fat and lazy. Now, that is a bad rap for the buffaloes because they work pretty hard in the fields and do their work without too many complaints. In fact, they work for food. In contrast, the president has put on a few pounds since becoming president and his 100-day agenda for his second, legacy building, term has been a bust. So, a bad rap for the buffaloes.

The problem is that the demonstrators scarper after the event and the authorities cannot track them down, presumably to prosecute them for being so rude as to liken the president to a buffalo or call him 'Mr. Light Fingers'. I am not sure why the authorities could not simply arrest the protesters before they scarper at the end of the protest if the president is really concerned that the protesters are going to far in their criticisms of him.

It appears that the president does not consider either accusation within the parameters of freedom of speech or freedom of expression. It, further, appears that the president wants to put a stop to this unwelcome behaviour before it gets truly out of hand.

The reality here is that this is a non-issue. The president has serious problems confronting his nation that are obviously beyond the scope and ability of the current cabinet he has assembled and his coalition of the willing to resolve, or in the first instance, and even address. Nevertheless, the president has characterized this issue as one that is so important that it goes to the heart of saving Indonesian culture, democracy, and civilization! Are you serious, Mr. President?

Rather than worry about whether people think he is a thief or a buffalo, it is perhaps a good time to actually do some work and solve some problems. Then, perhaps, the people will start to see SBY as the saviour that they once thought him to be. But, no, the president is just another politician looking to pass the buck and cast the blame onto some other poor unfortunate soul with neither the money nor the time to defend themselves.

It is time that the fella started doing what he was elected to do, be the president. It is time for some presidential leadership to come to the fore and fulfill the promise of making Indonesia better than it has ever been before. The people are ready and willing, are you Mr. President?

Viva Indonesia!

The Jakarta Bombings and Democracy...

The death of Noordin M Top provided the Indonesian National Police with a wealth of information and data apparently. During the shootout which saw Top finally topped, the police managed to recover a laptop that supposedly belonged to Top.

The police have today said that the laptop contained a number of videos. One of these videos was supposedly shot on 21 June 2009, about three weeks prior to the bombing, and shows the bombers, Dwi Permana and Nana Ikhwan Maulana, having a meeting that is being described as a picnic by some, in the vacant lot opposite the JW Marriott hotel and not far from the Ritz-Carlton hotel.

The video is allegedly shot by Saifuddin Jaelani. The video zooms in on Nana pointing to the hotels and saying, "this is our target". It is being reported that Jaelani's voice can be heard saying, "destroy America, destroy Australia, destroy Indonesia".

The video then cuts to Dani saying, "this is not suicide, this is what our enemies fear!" Dani then goes on to say, "this is an obligation for all, those who do not execute this obligation are sinners." Remember, Dani is just a youngster at 18 years of age. If Top and his jihadis could convince an 18-year-old to become a suicide bomber, then it is fair to say that they are a sophisticated and dedicated organization.

If anyone thinks that the death of Top puts an end to the scourge of terrorism in Indonesia they just do not understand the nature of the beast, or the mindset of those, who will go to any lengths to create a world in their own warped version of what they think God intended it to be. There might be a lull, but this is likely to be a lull before the storm. The laptop, according to police, also indicates that Top's band of jihadist warriors were well-organized, well-equipped, well-supported, and had recently re-established links with other terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.

Apparently, the laptop also includes a letter that Jaelani wrote to his family accusing Americans and Australians of "slaughtering his brothers". This explains the earlier comment, but may also go to show why the James Castle Breakfast gathering was targeted in the JW Marriott. It would seem a pretty good target for a terrorist trying to make a statement about American and Australian involvement in activities that a terrorist considers to be an insult to Islam and an affront to his Muslim brothers.

But, perhaps most terrifying for Indonesia and Indonesians is that Top and his band have decided to target Indonesia and Indonesian interests and the Indonesian government because of its efforts to promote democracy. This begs the question, when one considers, and in spite of the teething problems, the majority of Indonesians would consider more open government and greater democracy a step in the right direction.

It would seem that the more fundamental interpretation of Islam adopted by Top and Jaelani runs counter to what the great majority of Indonesian Muslims believe with respect to democracy.

Perhaps, the drive to democracy will be the trigger that invigorates moderate Muslims to oppose the radical or fundamental elements that seek to destroy rather than build on Indonesia's potential for greatness.

Viva Indonesia and Viva Democracy!

Rush Limbaugh, Barack Obama, and Adolf Hitler...

I have taught a lot of advocacy classes in my time. One of the things that I teach students in those classes is to be careful using exaggerated analogies. Simply, the exaggeration ends up making the analogy sound hollow and untrue. An exaggerated analogy then serves to do nothing more than detract and undermine what may in fact be a legitimate concern.

One of the examples that I use is: "the conditions of the jail where my client is incarcerated are as bad as Auschwitz!" The reason that this is an exaggerated analogy is abundantly clear to anyone who has read anything about the concentration camps that Nazi Germany used as part of the Final Solution. It is highly unlikely, for example, that a modern day prison in Australia, the US, the UK, or even Abu Ghraib, resemble the abhorrent conditions of Auschwitz.

So, as I was reading about Rush Limbaugh comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Obama's health care policies to the policies of the Third Reich and Nazi Germany, I could not help but think that any real points that Limbaugh may have been making would be lost in the brouhaha that was going to come with the analogy equating Obama to Hitler.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper wrote a short and interesting piece on the injection of Nazi into the debate and the dangers that this poses to American democracy.

For me, the points that Limbaugh is trying to make have been lost. I am sure that there are legitimate arguments to be made for and against the Obama health plan. However, labeling Obama a Nazi and trying to equate the health care symbol as one previously favoured by the Third Reich, the Reichsadler, is absurd.

The whole idea of equating Obama to Hitler and the Obama health policy to a policy of Nazi Germany and the Third Reich reminds me of my favourite Forrest Gump quote, "stupid is as stupid does!"

Defamation in Indonesia -- The Prita Mulyasari Case

This is an interesting case for a number of reasons, but it has become infinitely more interesting now that the Tangerang District Court has handed down its decision on the merits of the case. In essence, the Court has thrown the case out based on the legal reasoning that the law under which Prita was charged has not come into force. This means that the indictment was invalid and the allegations charged on ineffective legal provisions.

There has been much discussion about the legitimacy of the judiciary with respect to the quality of the judges being permitted to sit on the bench. These discussion generally call for immediate reform and a cleaning of the slate. The idea being one where all of the "dead wood" would be swept away and only quality timber would remain. This decision is sure to re-ignite the judicial reform debate, if the debate needs any re-igniting.

A really brief background of the Prita (photo here) case is as follows. Prita went to the Omni International Hospital for treatment. Prita was unhappy with the treatment and wrote to a friend expressing her disappointment and horror at how she was treated. This written account found its way to a mailing list, and the rest is history so to speak, as the account spread like wildfire. Eventually, Omni found out about the claims and sued Prita for defamation.

Defamation in Indonesia is both a civil and criminal offense. The civil case was heard before the criminal case (which has just been thrown out). In the civil case, Omni won a decision against Prita for the defamation. The Court in the civil case ordered Prita to pay damages to Omni to the tune of IDR 312 million. The Office of the Public Prosecutor in Tangerang decided that it was going to pursue the criminal defamation complaint as well and then had Prita placed in the Tangerang prison while awaiting trial.

Indonesia has been in a rather lengthy debate as to whether a democracy such as Indonesia should even have criminal defamation laws on the Statute Books. However, this really is not the issue, as there are democracies elsewhere that have criminal defamation laws on their statute books but also restrictive definitions as to what can be subject to a criminal defamation prosecution.

So, within this framework, the jailing of a mother of two, where one of those children is a breast-feeding infant was sure to cause public outrage. Even better still was that this is an election year, and with a presidential election in early July, this was the perfect time for some political grandstanding. Prita was eventually released from prison after some intervention from at least two of the three presidential candidates; Jusuf Kalla and Megawati Soekarnoputri are never ones to miss an opportunity.

There were even some harsh words from the Attorney General suggesting that the public prosecutors had over-stepped the mark. There was at the time the sense that perhaps the hospital had lobbied hard for the prosecutors to make a move on the criminal defamation and proceed against Prita.

Probably more interesting still was the public response that pre-empted, and perhaps even prompted, the political response and ultimate release of Prita from prison. Cyber space swung into full force and within next to no time there were groups dedicated to Prita's cause and a campaign for her release. The ease and the size of the campaign and are testament to Indonesia's online community and their ability to get organized fast.

Now comes the truly interesting part. I am all for judges who are a little bit activist and judges who are creative and novel in how they approach the law. Yet, there are those times where you simply just have to shake your head and say, "what were they thinking?" This is one of those cases.

For the record, I do not think Prita should have been put in jail pending the criminal defamation trial. The reason I had avoided writing on this subject is that from a strict legal interpretation sense the criminal provisions with respect to defamation are not absolute and there are at least three identifiable get out of defamation free cards; the statements were in the public interest, the statements were uttered in self-defense, and the statements are not defamation but the truth.

It is worth noting that the Constitutional Court has heard arguments on defamation and has held that the criminal defamation provisions are not a breach of the constitutionally guaranteed rights if Indonesian citizens. The Court has also held that any more recent legislation on defamation is to be read in conjunction with any other law or regulation that purports to govern the substantive matter of the allegation. Specifically, this means that the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions (Law No. 11 of 2008), and in particular Article 27, must be read in conjunction with the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP).

Defamation in Indonesia generally requires the insulting of one's honour or reputation. It would seem that Prita's statements to others would in a broad sense fit into this definition. Prita's defense against the allegation would be one or more of the exceptions noted earlier. Most likely here would be the public interest and that the statements are true.

The Tangerang District Court has however decided that Law No. 11 of 2008, which was enacted on 21 April 2008, does not come into force until 21 April 2010. Therefore, by the court's reasoning, the law is not officially in force and people cannot be charged under any provisions that it contains.

This is simply wrong. But, let's examine the rationale. The court relies on Article 54(2), which states the following:

All Government Regulations must be confirmed no later than two years after the enactment of this Law.

The court has therefore held that while there are pending subsidiary legislation to be confirmed the primary law is not in force.

However, this must be contrasted against Article 54(1) of the same Law, which states the following:

This Law comes into force on the date of its enactment.

Clearly, the primary law is in force according to the provisions of the law itself.

The judges have erred in their judgment on the merits of the legal basis of the case. The Office of the Public Prosecutor must appeal this case. The grounds for appeal are that the court has made a mistake of interpretation. Furthermore, the Article on which the Prita case is based, Article 27 of Law No. 11 of 2008, does not require any subsidiary legislation to be confirmed in order to be effective.

The impact of the decision is far-reaching in that all laws that have seen people charged, convicted, and detained based on a primary law where there was pending subsidiary legislation now have cause to go back and revisit the legal foundations of those cases. Lawyers in all pending cases need to look at whether there is a similar provision in the primary laws under which they have clients charged, as if there is pending subsidiary legislation then there are arguments to be made that the primary law is not in force.

There are also some serious questions to be asked where public prosecutors have brought cases to trial based on electronic evidence as defined in Law No. 11 of 2008. The serious questions here include, "if the law is not in force, then can the electronic evidence derived under its definitions be valid?"

Going forward the impact on legislators and drafters is that if they want a law to come into immediate force then the primary law must contain all the necessary provisions or primary laws must be submitted as a package deal with all the subsidiary legislation already prepared.

The decision needs to be overturned on appeal, if for no other reason, just to ensure legal certainty of legislation. The legal rationale and reasoning of the Tangerang District Court is wrong. It is unclear whether they were swayed by public opinion or feelings of "it is the right thing to do", but the decision is misguided. An Indonesian account of the decision can be found at Legal Minded by Ari Juliano Gema.

Once again, for the record, I am not for Prita being jailed. However, I am for the rule of law and proper enforcement of the law, and for all people to be treated equally under the law. The question of whether Prita has defamed Omni is a different question to the one being discussed here with respect to legal interpretation and the making of laws from the safety of the bench.

This is clearly not in the best interests of Prita (particularly if the case gets overturned on appeal), not in the best interests of Indonesia, and not in the best interests of the law.

The appeal is something I will certainly be watching.

Compulsory and Optional Voting -- Indonesia

This has appeared previously on en.hukumonline.com - here.

Optional and compulsory voting is always an issue that draws a great deal of commentary. However, when in a country such as Indonesia where voting in a general election is optional, the issuance of a fatwa by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) is certain to ratchet up the rate in which commentators express their views, particularly when the fatwa states that not to vote is haram or prohibited where there are qualified Muslim candidates standing.

Indonesia has traditionally had a sizable number of individuals who choose not to exercise their democratic rights and vote. This group is referred to as the Golongan Putih or Golput group. They are in essence a group that abstains from voting. Whether this is an expression of dissatisfaction with the quality of the candidates being offered or a lack of interest is irrelevant. However, some have suggested that it is likely that somewhere around 40%, if not more, of registered voters will not exercise their right to vote in the 2009 elections.

The Muslim community seems split on whether Islam considers the expression of democratic freedom through a decision not to vote is haram. Abdurraham Wahid, who is affectionately known as Gus Dur and who is a former President of Indonesia and an influential figure in Nahdlatul Ulama (Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization), has been active in campaigning for people to take golput seriously.

On the other hand, the Prosperous Justice Party’s (PKS), Hidayat Nur Wahid, explicitly stated that golput is prohibited under Islam and has pro-actively campaigned for the MUI to issue the fatwa. Perhaps, somewhat cynically, Hidayat believes that the PKS is likely to benefit from those disaffected voters who feel compelled to comply with the fatwa.

The House of Representatives (DPR) have also weighed in on the matter with the Head of the DPR, Agung Laksono, arguing that the right to vote implicitly contains a right not to vote and as such golput cannot be haram. According to Laksono, political parties must take heed of the increasing numbers of golput-ers as a sign that political parties have failed in translating their respective visions into policies and action on the ground that positively affects the lives of their constituents. To his mind, the fatwa is a mistake.

The reaction to the fatwa has been widespread and varied. The National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia / Komnas HAM) issued a press release on 2 February 2009 that states simply the fatwa is a violation of people’s human rights to exercise the right not to vote. Ifdhal Kasim, the Head of Komnas HAM, stated that the right to vote or not to vote was a basic human right that cannot and must not be interfered with.

He cites that this is a Constitutional guaranteed right that has been further strengthened with provisions in Law No. 39 of 199 and Law No. 2 of 2005. Ifdhal points out that the government has already ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which means that “societies or government could not limit this right through prohibition, criminalization, or imposing moral sanctions on people who did not use their right to vote”.

The General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum / KPU) who is tasked in carrying out the election, according to Ifdhal, is restricted by its mandate in that it does not allow them to issue any regulations which would impinge on the absolute rights of individuals to choose whether they vote or do not vote in a general election. However, the Head of the KPU, Abdul Hafiz Anshary, has been vocal in his support of the fatwa issued by the MUI. He has openly and publicly wondered why the MUI has only acted now on this issue.

According to Hafiz it is the MUI’s responsibility to supervise Muslims in order to see that Muslims exercise their rights in terms of voting for qualified Muslim candidates. In fact, Hafiz was unequivocal in stating that “not only cigarette are haram, but golput also haram.” This is in reference to another MUI fatwa that prohibits cigarette smoking in certain circumstances.

It is worth noting that MUI fatwas are not binding in a legal sense and it remains to be seen whether the fatwa has any moral force in terms of convincing potential golput-ers to vote.

(RAB / SH)

A Musing or A Ramble or a Bit of Both?

This year is an election year in Indonesia. That in and of itself will either excite people or bore the hell out of them. However, this little rambling musing is about change politics and the "yes, we can" philosophy seen recently in the US.

The Indonesian press and blogosphere has generally been pro-Obama and holds out high hopes that the new president of the US of A will be pro-Indonesia based on 4 or so years the man spent here as a child. The most recent warm and fuzzy moments relate to a You tube video doing the rounds showing the US president showing off his Indonesian language skills.

There are a couple of points to be made here. First, politics is always bigger than the person. Obama as president might be able to influence policy to some degree towards Indonesia, but the question is why do Indonesians think that this is such a positive? There was nothing in the campaign that he ran that would suggest that he is focusing on policy development related to Indonesia and nothing to say that this is going to be in Indonesia's benefit. Second, the love affair that Indonesians seem to have with the new US president highlights an extreme lack of hope in their own Indonesian politicians and the future of Indonesia.

Let's face it, when push comes to shove there are two possibilities being touted for Indonesia and depending on the day, it is either Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) or Megawati Soekarnoputri as the shoe-ins for the presidency of Indonesia. Why is this interesting? It is interesting because when it is all said and done this is politics as usual in Indonesia and not the change politics that the Indonesian media seem to have fallen for with Obama. It is also interesting because if the media really believed in change politics then the media would be excellent facilitators of promoting that change.

On Megawati, it must not be forgotten that Indonesia's most recent political assassination took place on her watch. The assassination of Munir has yet to see the "real" perpetrators of this crime identified, prosecuted, or jailed for their crimes. This is hardly an advertisement for a second crack at the big chair! It is also worth noting that Munir was particularly critical of SBY as being a military man with no commitment to investigating abuses of human rights, particularly in Aceh.

SBY has gone on the record as saying the investigation and prosecution is a test of his government's commitment to human rights and pursing justice for victims of abuses. He and his government have clearly failed this test.

The Indonesian political style of money dictating outcomes is rising its ugly head again, albeit in the form of crass public policy. The reduction of fuel prices is nothing but an attempt to draw votes by buying into the wallets of constituents and trying to avert attention aways from a poor record as president by SBY. Poor, is subjective but when you get elected with a change mandate like SBY, and then fail to deliver, it is fair that questions be asked of and on that record.

The most likely outcome is going to be people exercising their democratic right not to vote. This is known locally as Golput (golongan putih or the white group). I am anti-golput for many reasons, but most prevalent among these is that it is an affront to those who have laid down their lives to ensure that Indonesians achieved a "real" right to vote. It is a sad state of affairs that if among the 1000's of candidates that can be elected there is not one that represents your ideals, beliefs, hopes, and aspirations.

The idea that SBY or Megawati or someone else can reach the pinnacle of political power with a minority of voters electing them is sad. I accept that this is a feature of a non-compulsory voting system and even the grand old democracy known as the USA does not demand that its citizens vote if they do not want to. Yet, that is hardly the point.

Personally, I would vote and choose that minority candidate even if I was sure that they would not be elected. It is important that they know that they have support. Vote for the alternative candidate. It is also an equally effective way of showing the powers that be and those that do get elected that there are plenty of people out there who did not vote for them and place their faith in others.

I am the eternal optimist when it comes to all things Indonesian, and this is no different when it comes to matters of general and presidential elections.

Thus endeth this rambling musing.

Indonesian Elections and Youth

The Indonesian General Elections will soon be upon us. There is always talk of regeneration and providing opportunities for younger, and presumably cleaner, candidates that have not yet been tainted by the old ways of government. This coming cycle might provide a few of those opportunities. Then again, getting on a ticket is one thing, garnering the votes to get yourself elected is another kettle of fish altogether.

I need to state at the outset that I do not know the person who is the subject of this musing personal and I know not much about her, other than what I have read, therefore my commentary here is general within the framework of an actual possibility.

The National Awakening Party, which was once Amien Rais' vehicle for a shot at the presidency, but that never worked out for him, has selected a 21-year-old to head up their ticket in the province of Riau. This might be a bold move or just another case of politics as usual. It is being reported that the candidate, Nathania Regina, has family connections to the party and that her father has been a consistent and sizable financial supporter of the party in Riau.

This is unfortunate as it is destined to detract from any achievements that she may be able to cite in support of her candidacy, as the questions will linger. However, by all accounts she has spent much of her high school and university education overseas and has held leadership roles in student organizations. Whether this is a good grounding for national politics, Indonesia style, remains to be seen. What is for sure is that one can never know until it has been tried.

However, who is to say that 21 is too young to aspire to the national political stage? It is certain that youth will bring a certain degree of energy, altruism, and perhaps naivety that is free from the "business as usual" mindset of many other candidates. Perhaps it is these characteristics that Indonesia so desperately needs when they are combined with a commitment to change and a commitment to see the people of Indonesia achieving what is possible for all and not just for a select few.

The problem with youth is that it is so rarely connected to the powers that be. One 21 year-old, no matter how well-connected and how driven, may not be able to change the culture of politics in Indonesia as it currently stands. But, it is always worth a shot, always! The voters of Riau will make the determination by casting their votes.

I have always believed that if we can send our young men and women off to foreign shores to fight and die for our freedoms, then we can also afford them the same opportunity to fight for us and our freedoms at home in the halls of government and power. It is the epitome of arrogance by an entrenched set of interests to restrict the contribution of youth. It is, and will remain, empty rhetoric to say that the youth are our future but not let them then be a part of creating that future but rather enforce them to inherit problems that may never have existed had the vision of youth been given its due.

To be sure, if Nathania is elected it is going to be a steep learning curve as politics in all parts of the world is a cut throat business. Yet, it is nice to imagine a young woman sitting in the halls of power with the courage of her convictions to speak her mind and advocate for a better future. I just hope that she does not lose the innocence of her idealism in the process.

Viva Democracy!

US Presidential Elections

Are things shaping up for a landslide?

I have been reading some interesting articles today that are suggesting that Obama seems to have been getting it right on a number of things, like Afghanistan for example.

My politics are left of centre, liberal, and I am a supporter of the idea of a social democracy.

I am sure that there are many of you out there who are the same and maybe just as many who are not.

I am watching with interest in order to see who assumes the mantle of "leader of the free world".

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

The Right to Vote -- "Golput"

There is a lot of talk at the moment in Indonesia in the lead up to the next election of "golput". Golput is the abbreviation of "golongan putih" or the white group. In this context it is a group that will exercise their democratic right not to vote and therefore remain white or unstained by the process.

The idea of not voting, at least for me, undervalues the point of the democratic process. In the Indonesian context it is disrespectful to the many people who fought and died for the right to live free in a functioning democracy. Even if you vote and the people you vote for do not win, at least you have stood up, you have been counted, and you have expressed your will. Not voting for me ensures that the status quo remains and that the system never changes. I see little honour in being able to sit back and say, "it's not my fault because I did not vote for that person as a matter of fact I did not vote at all!"

With 34 political parties running in the 2009 election (at the present time, this may change -- different post for later) there surely must be one person that you could vote for who is most likely to be your voice in parliament. They might not win but, once again, at least you expressed your principles through your vote.

This piece is not a lecture or sermon to the masses, but rather personal musings on why I vote and the reasons that I see voting to be important. It is also a chance for me to express some exasperation at why people do not vote. It has always amused me that the Gettysburg Address talks about "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" yet Americans en masse tend not to turn out to vote. It is bizarre to me that Presidents can be elected to the most powerful position in the US with the support of less than 50% of those who are of voting age. I guess you get what you vote for or more importantly what you don't vote for.

Hence my basic problem with the idea of golput. If you are not going to engage in the democratic process of elections then why complain when you end up with the status quo. I think that if you want to complain then you need to have taken the time to get to a polling station and express your hopes and desires for the future of your country. Golput strikes me as a back seat driver without a license telling the driver how to drive.

Truth be told this post was just going to be the following quote, but as usual I have gotten carried away in my little moment. Nevertheless, this is something that is worth reflecting on:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

-- John Quincy Adams

Absentee Ballots

Here is another little piece of trivial pursuit information that you may never need.

In 1997 the Texas legislature passed a bill that allows an absentee ballot to be cast from space.

Now how cool is that? Every vote counts and I guess this is what democracy is about. Simply. making sure that no matter where you are in the universe you can exercise your democratic right to vote for the candidate of your choice.